Emmet board to decide today on permitting Bob Evans Restaurant

February 07, 2008|By Fred Gray News-Review Staff Writer

The Emmet County Board of Commissioners will vote today, Thursday whether to amend the county's Planned Unit Development agreement with R.G. Properties to allow a third sit-down restaurant such as Bob Evans to locate next to Applebee's on U.S. 131 just south of Petoskey.

Board chair Jim Tamlyn said at Tuesday's administrative meeting of the board that he expected a split vote to come down to him for a decision.

Representatives of both sides of the issue reiterated their views at Tuesday's meeting, with those in favor of allowing a Bob Evans restaurant to locate in the strip arguing that the area had taken on a new character over the past several years and that a restaurant that served breakfast as well as lunch and dinner would serve the tourism and retail trades.

But Bill Wentworth, owner of Applebee's, said the county should stick to its agreement that permits only two restaurants within the development. He said there are other locations in the area for a Bob Evans.

Advertisement

County zoning administrator Brentt Michalek said the area has become more of a retail destination for the region, and a restaurant could be considered a compatible and appropriate use. He said that amending the PUD would not be considered "spot zoning."

Bo Gunlock, representing R.G. Properties, said he considered a restaurant to be the "highest and best" use of the property.

In December the county planning commission approved by a 6-3 vote a proposal to amend the PUD to allow a third restaurant.

Realtor Pat Cormican and Michael Banyai, part owners of a professional office building along the north section of the property, argued that the original PUD limited sit-down restaurants on the property to two.

Planner Jack Jones said the nature of the area had changed significantly over the years since the PUD was first approved, and said he would not consider it inappropriate to raise the number of restaurants allowed to three.

The planners said there were good arguments on both sides, and said they need to be careful in the final approval process to accommodate the interests of both sides to the extent possible, particularly those of the incumbent office property owners.